[IMC-Boston-Editorial] Over zealous hiding?

[Svea Eppler]

     Hi folks.
   
       I have no problems un-hiding the message as long as there is an editor comment posted at the end of the comment describing why it was hidden/unhidden. Specifically, my concerns about the post are exactly the same as Sofia's. I'm concerned that it would incite trolls to post more nasty/racist/bigoted comments along the same lines, and that it would offend the organizers or participants in this particular evnet who tend to represent a minority on our website. 
   
       When you get down to it, I don't really have ANY problems with unhiding ANY posts on our site that have been hidden as long as there is a really well-explained reason for why it was hidden/unhidden posted. That's a HUGE part of the Editorial process that has been neglected over the last year or so. In the past, IMC editors add their "comments" as a bracketed and italicized comment at the end of the post, using proper capitals and punctuation.. In this case, the editors comment would say something like:
   
  <i>[Editors note: This comment was originally hidden because there was concern over the potential racist stereotypes of the comment. It has been un-hidden by a concensus editorial decision in hopes that the comment will inspire discussion on the content of the post and its relationship with the parent article including: racial stereotypes, community organizing, and the Rosa Parks memorial events.]</i>
   
       Cheers!
   
       S.
  

"Jonathan D. Proulx" <jon at csail.mit.edu> wrote:  On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 08:05:21AM -0800, Sofia JarrinT wrote:
:Hmmm, not too sure about this one, Jon. The comment sounds down racist to me, and we have a clear policy on hiding racist posts. Although I wasn't the one who hid it, I probably would've anyway. 

I will grat there is likely a level or racism behind the post.

It is likely that this is due to misunderstanding rather than this
individuals relationship with aryan nation.

If we hide anything with even a tinge of racism how do we counter that
thinking? By (imperfect) analogy if this were the 80's hid any post
that suggested that AIDS was only a gay man's disease would we be
helping by suppressing homophobia or hurting by suppressing the
opportunity to present counter evidence?

We can't have an exchange of ideas if we only allow our ideas. This
isn't spouting hate, it's rather more insidious than that and I feel
very strongly that shining a light on it as they only way to make it
better, keeping it under tight wraps is only going to make it fester.

-Jon

_______________________________________________
Boston-editorial mailing list
Boston-editorial at lists.indymedia.org
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-editorial




"Once is by accident, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action!" - good military advice for the modern media guerilla
		
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! Personals
 Single? There's someone we'd like you to meet.
 Lots of someones, actually. Yahoo! Personals
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/boston-editorial/attachments/20051205/0e020245/attachment.html